> ...doesn't matter how well it does in 90% of situations...
Based on the full-length videos, I'd say it's more like 99.9% or even 99.99% for FSD 9.
Based on the full-length videos, I'd say it's more like 99.9% or even 99.99% for FSD 9.
Human drivers don't steer towards concrete pillars every time they drive down the street.
The new software seen here hasn’t been released so there’s no data yet. We cannot possibly make an assessment based on a few hand-picked videos - a quick YouTube search will give you thousands of human driver examples that are even more dumb.
> In the 1st quarter [2021], we registered one accident for every 4.19 million miles driven in which drivers had Autopilot engaged. For those driving without Autopilot but with our active safety features, we registered one accident for every 2.05 million miles driven. For those driving without Autopilot and without our active safety features, we registered one accident for every 978 thousand miles driven. By comparison, NHTSA’s most recent data shows that in the United States there is an automobile crash every 484,000 miles.
Their autopilot stat is also misleading because AP will most likely be engaged only in ideal weather conditions on divided roads.
Mostly the Tesla numbers are comparing accident rates of just Teslas. You can ignore average accident rate across all vehicles if you like.
If would be truly great if the NHTSA could publish accident rates broken down is various ways like by road type and weather conditions. I’ve never been able to find this data.
Given the telemetry the car is equipped with they absolutely have the data to control for some of these factors yet they make no attempt to do so. Why is that? My take is that after doing so autopilot doesn't look so good.
The point being that the failure rates society accepts for cars are actually pretty amazingly low and human drivers are surprisingly good. These things are measured with 6-7 9s as a non-negotiable minimum, so positing hypotheticals at the 99-99.99% is highly non-representative of what is actually acceptable.
Anybody discussing things at that level is making a pretty fundamental category error and any conclusion that anyone might draw from those thought experiments are largely invalid due to the multiple order of magnitude difference between such a thought experiment and reality.
Not really a great metric. We should be looking at disengagements per MM.
The part of the discussion that concerns their marketing is uninteresting and overdone; someone else can discuss that part.
You assumed numbers are time. Now assume numbers are manoeuvres.